Veste

Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Extracover Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5838835 of 2025-11-28T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Extracover Limited. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5838835
Decision date2025-11-28T00:00:00+00:00
FirmExtracover Limited
ProductMotor insurance
Claim typeService failures generally
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyExtracover Limited must: (1) Provide Mr S with his insurance certificates within four weeks of the decision being accepted; (2) Pay Mr S £100 compensation for trouble and upset caused by failure to provide certificates.

Summary

Mr S complained to the FOS about Extracover Limited's administration of his commercial motor insurance policy for food delivery work. He raised two main issues: that Extracover changed prices without informing him and that the firm refused to provide all his insurance certificates. The investigator upheld the complaint regarding certificates but not pricing, recommending £100 compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Extracover's failure to provide certificates caused unreasonable trouble and upset, but that pricing decisions were made by the underwriter and were clearly displayed in the app at each policy generation, so no breach occurred on pricing.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Extracover failed to provide Mr S with his insurance certificates, which was unreasonable and caused trouble and upset. However, regarding pricing, the ombudsman determined that pricing decisions are made by the underwriter, not the broker, and that pricing was clearly displayed in the app at the point of policy generation for each new shift, so Mr S could accept or reject it. Since each shift generated a new policy, specific communications about price changes were not required.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Extracover Limited, all decisions2552%
Service failures generally, all decisions32,76733%
Motor insurance, all decisions24,03635%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website